R. Slicker
Well-known member
- Jan 1, 2009
- 4,490
[tweet]1509472416619245570[/tweet]
[tweet]1509472416619245570[/tweet]
The driver didn't injure the cyclist quite clearly. She fell off because the one in front stopped and she lost her balance.
If that was a normal 2 lane road and someone went past on their lane, the 1st one wouldn't stop and squeal and the 2nd wouldn't fall off, bloke should have pleaded not guilty, and before anyone has a pop, yes I do ride a bike.
You realise that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, don't you?
If that was a normal 2 lane road and someone went past on their lane, the 1st one wouldn't stop and squeal and the 2nd wouldn't fall off, bloke should have pleaded not guilty, and before anyone has a pop, yes I do ride a bike.
Deserves everything he got. Initially pleaded not guilty but when prosecuted and presented with evidence pleaded guilty.
As the local RPU stated drivers should always give 1.5 m distance and pass slowly. He did neither
it have cyclist go past closer and faster, if i fall over as they thats legit is it?
I'd have parked my Land Rover up, strolled up to the ditch with some purpose, brandished a Yellow Card at her whilst fending off the protestations of her fellow cyclists, then returned to my vehicle and carried on my day...
I'm sorry but all I see there is someone falling off their bike (probably after being bumped by the cyclist behind). The bloke (of course it was a bloke) with the head cam should have stayed behing the person in front, too, and not pulled out.
I am someone who cycles regularly in London (until 2 years ago, 5 days a week).
Edit. Nope, just watched a 4th and 5th time. No idea why she fell over